Community Organiser for EA London—https://www.ealondon.com/
Monthly Overload of EA—https://moea.substack.com/
One person has already commented saying they will change how they act.
I think just writing a post can lead to some of the changes you want to see.
One example being the “It’s really really hard to get hired by an EA organisation”. Having that exist and be spread amongst people was able to start changing expectations that people had.
I also think even if most people already agree, there are some people haven’t thought about the subject of this post and may change their behaviour after having read it. I have seen a few examples of this on Twitter and in person before.
I think it helps that the journalist had been aware of EA since 2013 and taken the GWWC pledge in 2014 even if they hadn’t been involved in the community that much.
It may be more about how much of the conversation space is taken up with different topics rather than the funding amounts (relative or absolute).
I think even if there had been a larger animal funder keepings the percentages the same, but no change in topics, people will still sense a shift.
This seemingly already exists with BeReal.”Its main feature is a daily notification that encourages users to share a photo of themselves and their immediate surroundings given a randomly selected two-minute window every day. Critics noted its emphasis on authenticity, which some felt crossed the line into mundanity.”″As of July 2022 the app had over 20 million global installs estimated”
If there was some kind of Global EA directory/ year round Swapcard, this project idea could be rolled into it quite easily.
The right framing can make a big difference.
Also I see lots of positive comments from people who have done the Intro EA virtual program or who have read Doing Good Better.
It may also be a difference between how YouTube comments are quite positive these days and Twitter still has incentives for negative comments.
I think supporting friendships in a group can be useful, but this tends to be what most community organisers are already focusing on.
There are downsides like being perceived as a friends group which make it harder for new people to get involved. Also some of the most impactful people may not be looking for new friends, but are looking for advice on where to donate/work/volunteer their time.
I’ve written about how group organisers should try to focus more on the wider network than just a tight knit club.
This will also depend on the size of a group, smaller groups probably benefit from strong friendships to begin with, but as the group grows, too many close friendships might limit future growth.
Within the community building section I think there are a variety of activities that a group could support, some of these are mentioned above but I thought it might help to categorise them.
Helping people to advance their careers within that field
Helping people work out what are the paths out of that profession and into more impactful careers
Helping people who are considering a career in that profession to decide whether it is a good fit for them
Doing research as a group into what are the ways to have impact within this profession
Fundraising, volunteering, shifting company giving and shifting company priorities as mentioned in the post
Helping EA related organisations when they are looking for insights/support from this field
Providing another way for people to stay engaged with EA
I would suggest to try coaching first as it will be much quicker to find out if you enjoy it/find it impactful compared to therapy which could take years before you get a good sense of your personal fit.
80,000 Hours have a section in their career guide on exploration which might be useful here.”Later in your career, if you’re genuinely unsure between two options, you might want to try the more ‘reversible’ one first. For instance, it’s easier to move from business to nonprofits than vice versa.”
It’s worth reaching out to therapists and coaches here to get a better sense of your uncertainties.
I tried to do something similar a while ago looking at under-5 mortality.
I think it would be similar to the opinion people would have on the choice of film you choose to see at the cinema or which meal to buy at a restaurant.
I don’t see EA as trying to maximise all donations, just maximise the impact of donations set aside for effective giving. And the donation side is just part of the larger set of actions we can take when trying to do good.
Julia Wise has a couple of good posts on this topic—Giving Cheerfully and It’s Okay to Feed Stray Cats.
I made a list of lists for EA London as I couldn’t find one elsewhere that had the info I wanted to share.
There was a post on this recently.
In the UK there are people who’ve heard about it on the radio, podcasts and some articles in the media.
Founders Pledge have a report on offsetting here.
“In the first post in this series, Climate and Lifestyle: policy matters, we discussed some of the most important lifestyle decisions for the climate and saw the effect that climate policy has on each person’s potential impact. However, our analysis excluded one crucial lifestyle decision: donations to effective climate non-profits.
Emissions per person vary considerably even across rich countries: the average American emits 18 tonnes of CO2 per year, whereas the average Swede emits only 7 tonnes. As a guiding rule, if you live in a rich country and live a typical lifestyle, then you probably emit between 5 and 20 tonnes of CO2 each year.
Our research suggests that Founders Pledge-recommended climate charities—the Clean Air Task Force and the Coalition for Rainforest Nations—have in the past averted a tonne of CO2 for less than $10 in expectation (i.e. after weighting the impact of the changes they worked for by the probability that the organisation actually made a difference), and potentially much less. Therefore, as Figure 1 shows, the expected impact of your personal donations is much larger than any of the lifestyle decisions discussed in the first post:
figure 1: Climate impact of lifestyle decisions compared to effective donations (tonnes of CO2)
Source: See the references and calculations in the Climate and Lifestyle calculations sheet
This being said, it is very important to choose carefully who you donate to. Many organisations offer surprisingly cheap carbon offsets, promising to abate a tonne of CO2 with high confidence for $1 or less. These figures are not realistic. The incentives are not set up well for organisations to provide reliable carbon emissions reductions. There is limited oversight of offsetting organisations’ work, so they have an incentive to offer attractive price points without actually reducing emissions. Thus, choosing instead to donate to effective policy and research organisations is crucial. The impact is plausibly 100 times greater.
This raises the question: does donating offset the harm you do by emitting? We argue that looking at donating through the lens of offsetting is doubly flawed. Most importantly, it limits people’s ambitions. People ask: how can I undo the effect of my own emissions? Instead, they should ask: how can I have the biggest possible impact on climate change?
If we only donate to offset our personal emissions and no further, then we hugely restrict our potential impact. A typical person emits 5-20 tonnes of CO2 each year. So if you assume that the most effective climate charities can abate a tonne of CO2 for less than $10, then you can offset your emissions for just $200 per year. Our recommended charities operate on budgets in the low millions but have led policy campaigns that have had a huge effect on global climate policy. Many people in wealthy countries could give more than $200 to support them, and thereby have enormous leverage.
Secondly, donating to effective climate charities almost never, in any meaningful sense, offsets the harm you do by emitting....
In sum, it is not usually feasible to truly offset the harm from your past emissions. So, on rights-based views, donations to climate charities do not offset any harm you have done by emitting. On consequentialist theories, offsetting is always irrelevant, and we should instead try to do the most good with our donations. If stopping climate change turns out to be the best way to do good, then donations should be a top priority for the climate-conscious individual. For a more detailed treatment of these and more considerations, refer to our full research report on Climate and Lifestyle.”